I attended two conferences in June, the iMedia Brand Summit in Miami and the Edelman New Media Academic Summit in New York. The titles of these conferences sound a lot alike, but the focus of the two events was entirely different.
I struggle to find the right language for describing the difference, as both are part of the big umbrella known as ‘online marketing’. Perhaps the safest way to describe the differences is that one event was more focused on influencing consumer behavior and attitudes while the other was focused on influencing consumer public engagement or conversation. The first event was more about paid media while the second was more about content and journalism. Social media, however, was a key topic at both.
Attending both events back to back served to highlight an important debate: Is social media part of ‘digital marketing’ or is it an extension of ‘public relations’?
The question is not an insignificant one. If social media is an extension of online consumer marketing in the tradition of online advertising, SEO, and email marketing, it will have a different set of tools and practitioners than if it is an extension of the traditional public relations platforms for communicating with ‘stakeholder’ groups, only some of which are customers. It has implications for how (and in what department) we teach social media and the skills required to manage it on behalf of clients.
Even more significantly, how a firm answers this question for itself has important implications for organizational structure, agency relationships, brand ownership and resource allocation. Is social media a corporate function or a brand building function? Are its goals primarily reputational? Or are they intended to drive loyal customer behavior and sales?
Two new reports issued this week suggest marketers are struggling to use social media as a means of driving business results.
McKinsey Quarterly Report, “Unlocking the Elusive Potential of Social Networks“
There is much hype about social networks and their potential impact on marketing, so many companies are diligently establishing presences on Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms. Yet the true value of social networks remains unclear, and while common wisdom suggests that they should be tremendous enablers and amplifiers of word of mouth, few consumer companies have unlocked this potential. At Liberty Interactive, which comprises many specialty e-commerce companies, we wrestle daily with the question of how to realize the promise of social networks.
Digital Brand Expressions: “Social Media Without a Parachute” June 2010
While 78% percent of (businesses surveyed) said they are using social media, only 41% of them said they have a strategic plan in place for their social media usage, leaving close to 60% without a game plan for their social media activities. Seventy-one percent of respondents with a plan (71%) indicate they use social media for public relations communications, and 55% say that they use social media for sales-related activities. Only 16% say their HR team is using social media for recruiting, employee retention, training and development, etc. Just 26% use it for customer service.
Until recently, there has been little research on the ‘value’ of a ‘fan’. Syncapse recently published what I believe is the first economic case for gaining fans or followers on Facebook. The research shows fans are more valuable than non-fans (control group) in terms of purchasing, loyalty and propensity to recommend. Yet results varied widely by brand. At an average lift of $72 per fan, one still has to question the value of a fan in purely economic or ROI terms.
In some ways this debate – PR vs. online marketing – simply aggravates a debate that has been going on for a long time, that is ‘who owns the brand’? Or phrased another way, who has responsibility for building brand equity?
Traditionally this has been the role of the brand manager or CMO. The strategies for creating and sustaining brand relationships were originated in the brand group and coordinated through marketing, primarily with the assistance of a general purpose advertising agency supplemented by specialty marketing firms. Marketing PR (MPR) was part of the integrated approach, but rarely lead the parade, unless the consumer and corporate brand were one in the same. Corporate brands or ‘reputation’ issues were handled at a different level and often worked closely with PR firms.
However, with social media the lines are becoming blurred. Where the brand starts and the corporation begins is not as clear as it once was. Brand issues on social media can quickly become corporate ones, as companies involved in recalls or customer service issues have learned. There are nagging questions of who is empowered to speak on behalf of the brand and the risks of saying too much.
What concerns me about the debate about where social media fits is the potential for it to become disconnected from marketing.
Indeed, it was telling how seldom the word ‘marketing’ came up at the New Media Summit. The Gen Y marketers from Edelman who participated in a panel discussion revealed that they wished they had learned more about ‘business’ during their college careers. However, they readily shared that they do not think of themselves ‘as marketers’ but as something ‘bigger than marketing’ – the corporate reputation or brand. (Huh?) In contrast, the Gen Y digital marketers I speak with who are active in SEO, email marketing, web site design, etc. think of themselves as marketers.
Richard Edelman proclaimed at the New Media summit that PR is now ‘the organizing force’ for public engagement’, in that PR provides the ‘galvanizing ideas’ that forms the ‘runway’ for other efforts, rather than something that ‘piggybacked’ on content and ideas created by advertising.
“We should aim for measurable outcomes beyond media impressions and advertising equivalencies, including Building Trust, Changing Behaviors, Deeper Communities and Delivering Commercial Benefit. At the same time we must draw a clear line between journalism and public relations, as we rely on a discerning media sector as a cornerstone of our work. We will proceed along two dimensions—to encompass a broader set of media options, from Mainstream to New to Social to Owned; and engage stakeholders in deeper, long-term social relationships, as all communications become public. In this way, PR can assume its proper role as the organizing principle for strategy and communications. – Richard W. Edelman, “Public Engagement; The Third Way”
Like advertising, direct mail or traditional PR, social media is a way to get attention for your brand, engage customers and to build brand relationships. But unlike advertising, direct mail or traditional PR, it is not clear yet how to effectively link social media strategy to brand strategy. If a brand is going to have a conversation with customers, the brand strategy needs to specify what that conversation is about and its purpose. Furthermore, brand conversations are not free, so they will have to be paid for out of dollars that could be allocated elsewhere. That means those dollars ultimately will have to be accountable for more than simply generating goodwill.
I don’t have the answers, but I think the question is one worth pondering. If social media is primarily a means for engaging stakeholders, only some of whom are customers, in conversation that builds brand reputation, then it is more of a corporate function and PR should lead. However, if social media is a brand engagement tool for driving deeper relationships that result in tangible returns, then it is a marketing function.
If the answer is both (and according to the Brand Expressions research, this is the most likely answer) then processes will need to be developed that help marketers and communications managers define objectives, allocate resources, clarify responsibilities and develop processes for making the most of social media.
